>> welcome to a special meeting of the san francisco local

agency formation commission. my name is david campos, i am the chair of the commissions. commissioners mirkarimi and avalos are en route. i want to thank members of the sfgtv staff that are covering this meeting. do we have any announcements? think you. can you call item number two? >> approval of the minutes of the regular lafco meeting. >> we have the minutes of the january 28 meeting. are there any changes? any member of the public that would like to speak on item number two? can we get a motion on item

number two? we can take that without objection. can you please call item no. 3? >> report on the status of community choice aggregation. supervisor campos: thank you. how to first report on this item as mr. campbell from the public utilities commission. >> my name is mike campbell, i am director of the clean power sf program. i will give a quick update on the programs and the next steps. i outlined our approach moving forward and the success that we had as the starting point for

our negotiations and getting a power supply contract. i am really excited that we are starting to move forward here. we can give san franciscans and ability to choose a supplier. we have begun preliminary discussions, and shell is the supplier. in additio. in addition, we are starting negotiations with energy solutions, the back-office support. there is data communication between us in terms of kilowatt hours.

those conversations are underway. on a parallel track, we're starting to figure out how to roll hall for the procurement of development of a new generation services. and having that dovetail well with the special supplier. for the development of resources, we will look to the existing city policy in determining the preference for various types of resources with a clear preference. we will be sure that they stipulate that for in-city renewables. as i mentioned, we will try to make sure the resources as we fold them into the program

lineup with the overall energy mix. this commission has been interested in some solar projects. there were presentations on petro-solar. we have had some technical discussions with folks on the street by its division -- streetlights division to talk about some of the technical features and think about the way to best set up a pilot study of their technology. so that technical teams are looking at that in conjunction n.ywith petro-solar. lastly, i wanted to give a quick update on some of the regulatory activities we have been undertaking.

setting the bond amount that we would have to post. we have been filing comments on that as well as comments about the exit fee. it is sometimes called a cost responsibility surcharge. it is a power charge. in the case of the exit fee, even the utility's are sort of forced into of knowledge in the current way that that structure has too much in favor. it is favorable for the overall prices. importantly, the last thing the is that there is a new legislation introduced by leno that is legislation that we worked on with his office hit

her in edition with other interested cca's. i wanted to make sure that my colleagues from lafco were part of that discussion. it was designed to clarify, really trying to undo some of the unfair advantages. a few highlights of the legislation include the code of conduct and better enforcement of procedures for utilities. and bringing violations to the cpuc. it may not be terminated without a fair public hearing.

as you recall, there was a discussion about the reentry limitations. if a customer switches out of that, who have to stay out of the program for three years. it would allow them to come back after six months. it further of firms and clarifies that it would be at their discretion to a knowledge those types of resources for serving those customers. that is my general update. supervisor campos: we have been joined by commissioner avalos. commissioner schmeltzer: i wanted to go back to the meeting that you had with petro- solar. can you tell us more about what happened at the meeting and what

their presentation in jail? -- entailed? >> some of the engineers and managers put infrastructure in the field. those are managers from the street lights division. and on their side, one of the engineers was able to answer some of the technical questions. it was related to ways and devices that would communicate with one another, what those protocols were getting a truck

and putting them on a pole. insuring that some of our poll es would be capable of holding the way. -- weight. some important meetininformatios at that meeting. commissioner schmeltzer: you think there will be some sort of follow up? you will be continuing to potentially talk to them? >> we continue to talk to them to identify the right place to put in a few test units as well as what protocol you might have them place -- in place.

commissioner schmeltzer: i am glad to hear that there was a meeting and that it was productive. we don't know anything about the company except what we have heard in this chamber. but we can use the existing real estate that we have and the existing infrastructure to support more renewable energy seems like a good opportunity that is worth investigating. supervisor campos: any other questions? i had one follow-up, if i may. i see that there is a letter to the lafco commissioners. with respect to a local renewable build-out which is what was provided in the

original ordinance. can you speak to how that is going, when the time line involved is, and what, if any involvement we can have to make sure that it is progressing. >> that was part of the rfp for the build-up i was mentioning. we are working to ensure that we have an rfp ready to go with the power supply contract we are negotiating. we have had some good conversations about that. and potential resources are locations in the city where one of the things we want to do is include a detailed the appendix

that will detail city owned and identify locations that would be ideal bowl for renewals. -- ideal for renewables. in terms of timing, we have a commitment, but i expect it will move in tanedem with negotiations with a potential supplier. supervisor campos: basically it directs lafco to provide some oversight in terms of the reports provided to lafco. perhaps that can be

incorporated. >> that makes sense. supervisor campos: miss miller? >> we can certainly do that. we can have a report on the status of the negotiations. we have been working on phase ii. it would be renewable portion. supervisor campos: seeing no other questions, why don't we open it up? >> it is a cca bill. out of the pg&e bill.

it is a limitation with respect to the energy service provider that can be providing the service. it was just introduced. i don't even have a language for you yet. it is by assemblymean hall. we will get the language to you as soon as possible. this is not a huge surprise to us since we figured with our legislation to do what we want, it is not as supportive of the activities. supervisor campos: is there a specific action you are asking from lafco?

>> we don't have support for the bill that the senator is carrying. supervisor campos: thank you. why don't we open it up for public comment? if anyone would like to speak, please come forward. >> i am from the local clean energy alliance. thank you for pointing to the letter that i wrote. it is basically a knowledge in the -- acknowledging the sfpuc. we hope to work with the sfpuc as advocates to make sure the scope of work involved is

strong. just a note of thank you and appreciation. supervisor campos: next speaker. >> i am going to continue on the same note that he started with, it is very good that over the course of the last few weeks, sfpuc and lafco staff were able to get on the same page and come up with a strategy for all of us to move forward. lafco staff and sfpuc staff wanted to make sure that we got started with the cca rapidly.

and definitely hot, advocates over the past couple of years have been concerned that the local build out would become second fiddle to the program. it is possible that they have agreed to go forward with that at the same time they are working out the contract for purchasing at the beginning. we wanted to make sure that it stays vigilant about making certain that the scope of work that is necessary is robust, strong, and is also created and guided by local power and other such consultants. so that the build-out part has

the best picture put forward of how it should be. we would move on separate tracks together. this would become dialectic. both processes are communicating with each other. so as preparation is done, we are paying attention to how that relates to the purchasing strategy. it is learning from what the build-out rfp is learning itself. i would respectfully correct lafco counsel a little bit. we don't want to bephase -- this to be phase i and phase ii, but

phase i a and b. it will be giving us a much stronger cca. [chime] supervisor campos: thank you. is there any other member of the public that would like to speak? >> i would just like to make a quick statement showing that the sierra club is in support of the new scoping process and also that we are in strong support of local build-out of renewables. we look forward to having everything up and running. supervisor campos: any other member of the public that would like to speak? public comment is closed. i want to reiterate that it is

great to see everyone here that has been involved, the community that everyone is working together and a lot of credit goes to the san francisco puc. i met with him in the last few days and i think it is that spirit that is translating and trickling down. madame clerk, call item number four. >> report on the city resources plan. >> jason fried, lafco staff. we will yield to sfpuc to present on this item. >> i am with the san francisco public utilities commission.

i wanted to update you on the status of the resource plan. san francisco adopted a resource plan by the board of supervisors, and they laid out a very broad goals that would close the poewwer plant. today should be the last day of operation. as the plan was originally written, the board of supervisors urged us to update the plan. the sfpuc is part of updating this plan. they will see if it is feasible. in response to guidance, they have taken a number of actions.

first in updating the resources plan, we of a guidance -- update guidance from lafco. the rocky mountain institute author of the resource plan -- authored the resource plan. we help vett and review the plan. it is our goal to take the updated resource plan before the commission of its endorsement. it proposes three broad strategies. i will briefly describe each of these strategies.

they sort of recognize some of the constraints. about 80% of the electricity is provided by pg&e and not by the city itself. with the exception of hunters point, they own the entire transmission system. the various energy service providers are subject to regulation that pre-empts san francisco being able to directly influence them. the third point is the updated electricity resources plan that recognizes the goals that aggregation complaint. as i mentioned, the updated resource plan has three very broad strategies. the first one is to empower san francisco residents how to

reduce emissions through direct activities. this promotes energy efficiency, the insulation of distributed generation. the second recommendation has increased the amount of greenhouse gas electricity that is supplied from the wholesale energy market. it means both within san francisco as well as the western united states that san francisco currently gets its energy from. it comes from provider's other than the city. and we ensure that the commission continues its mandate and the role. for purposes of promoting a greenhouse gas future, this develops a creditworthy bond rating to carry out long-term financing. for each of these strategies,

there is more detailed recommendation. we have the necessary actions, potential funding opportunities, and to lay out a potential fine -- the time lines for these goals. we have met with the citizen's advisory committee. the san francisco public utilities commission -- we have posted the latest version of electricity resources plan. supervisor campos: questions?

the treatment that community choice aggregation has under the plan, i am wondering if you can speak to that. >> many of the goals are consistent with the cca goals and vice versa. there is a reference at page 79 of the report is something we have discussed that is not part of the clean energy program other than -- it is one that we

are looking at a product that might cost more. it would be having a significant greener products than what currently be provided. there are a lot of good things to say about the energy resource plan and that is consistent with our goals. >> are you satisfied this plan suffices in terms of what it would mean a long term for the city and county of san francisco? >> i believe so. supervisor campos: thank you.

any other questions? why don't we open it up to public comment? >> good afternoon again, commissioners. as you know, it was called for a couple years ago by supervisor maxwell and others because we needed a new one. i would respectfully disagree a little with counsel miller. the sf electricity resources plan before this current iteration, it did not have sufficient engagement. a lot of advocates at the clean energy storage meeting definitely pointed that out and asked for changes. definitely pointed that out and asked for changes.